Opinion
6542 Ind. 5098/13
05-10-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Miguel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Christina A. Swarns, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Aaron Zucker of counsel), for respondent.
Christina A. Swarns, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Aaron Zucker of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Tom, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered November 25, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2? to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for reassignment of counsel at sentencing, and we find no basis for a new sentencing proceeding. Defendant's allegations about the deterioration of his relationship with counsel were insufficiently specific to require the court to conduct a "minimal inquiry" into the nature of the disagreement (see People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 101, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 [2010] ; People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824–825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 [1990] ). Defendant's allegations were vague and generalized, and therefore insufficient to show the court that he had a seemingly serious complaint about the representation (see e. g. People v. Stokes, 149 A.D.3d 510, 52 N.Y.S.3d 326 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1087, 64 N.Y.S.3d 177, 86 N.E.3d 264 [2017] ; People v. Colon, 145 A.D.3d 562, 44 N.Y.S.3d 25 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 947, 54 N.Y.S.3d 378, 76 N.E.3d 1081 [2017] ). In any event, the court engaged in the requisite inquiry by allowing defendant the opportunity to fully explain his complaints about counsel (see People v. Nelson, 7 N.Y.3d 883, 884, 826 N.Y.S.2d 593, 860 N.E.2d 56 [2006] ; Colon, 145 A.D.3d at 562, 44 N.Y.S.3d 25 ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Defendant's claim that, at the time of the plea, the court misstated the law relating to failure or inability to make restitution is unpreserved, and in any event does not warrant a sentence reduction.